I've been in the IT industry since the time of the dinosaurs (ICL anyone?). I've written books about the Internet and networking, consulted for all sorts of companies, and been a contributor and columnist for Network World for 18 years (check out my Backspin and Gearhead columns). I created and co-founded Netratings (now wholly owned by Nielsen) and have CTO'ed for a couple of startups. I live in Ventura, CA. I do not surf.

Believing in Cold Fusion and the E-Cat

So, it turns out that any concerns you might have had over Harold Camping’s prediction that the world would end on October 21, can now be put aside: The world is still here (as far as I can determine) and humanity is still busy going about its evil ways which involve consuming energy at a staggering rate … and that leads me nicely to this week’s revisiting of the topic of my blog posting two weeks ago, “Hello Cheap Energy, Hello Brave New World“.

As I discussed in that posting, an inventor by the name of Andrea Rossi has developed what he claims to be a simple system for generating what would be, essentially, endless and incredibly cheap energy.

On October 28th the biggest test of Rossi’s system, which is called the E-Cat, was conducted in Italy and some results were made public which I’ll discuss in a moment.

Before that I do, let me give you a quick refresh: The E-Cat, which is short for “Energy Catalyzer”, is claimed to produce a “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” or LENR. LENR is another name for “cold fusion” or CF (LENR is considered a more acceptable term than CF which was discredited after two world-class researchers, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, announced that they had a working cold fusion system but which, alas, no one could duplicate).

Allow me to digress for a moment to ask all of you who sent me messages in tones ranging from polite through to downright rude asserting that cold fusion has actually been successfully duplicated: If an experiment that demonstrates cold fusion has really been replicated in the real world by real scientists then why would the scientific community ignore something so profound? Everyone agrees that cold fusion would be a game changer and in itself would be a hugely important scientific discovery so why would anyone in the scientific community ignore an important, successful, and replicable experiment?

Rossi’s E-Cat is claimed to use a secret catalyst to react hydrogen with nickel and, in the process, transmute the nickel into copper producing considerable heat. Whether this reaction works or not and if it does, exactly how it works, has been enormously contentious and the subject of numerous learned and amateur debates.

Rossi has previously conducted several demonstrations of the E-Cat and the publicly revealed results have done little to convince the skeptics but have driven the “Believers” into a frenzy of support, accusations of cover-ups by “The Man”, and endless hyping of other energy generating solutions.

The skeptics fall into two camps: Those who flatly don’t believe that Rossi’s E-Cat could ever work at all, and those who take a rather more objective stance and, whether they are hopeful of a positive outcome or not, are deferring judgment until convincing results are produced.

I would include myself in the latter: I really hope the E-Cat works as claimed but I want to see proof; real, verifiable, scientifically valid proof.

Many of those who argue that the E-Cat is flat out impossible and that the whole thing is a mistake at best or a fraud at worst are serious scientists and, you have to admit, they have a point; how could something like the E-Cat work in defiance of known science?

Even so, to be completely dismissive of Rossi’s claims would seem to be foolish as it is one thing to *believe* something is false based on your assumptions and quite another to be able to *prove* beyond a reasonable doubt that it is false.

While the hard core skeptics might be erring in one direction, the Believers are erring in a completely opposite way. Despite a lack of solid evidence and based on the slim, unverifiable test data from the E-Cat trials revealed to date, they still just believe. They post in blogs, in forums, and on Web sites long and often impassioned arguments based on their interpretations of physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, string theory, numerology, and maybe even the divination of goat entrails. I find most of these arguments impossible to understand let alone refute because unless you really are a real physicist or chemist (or goat entrails reader) the “proofs” are usually impenetrable jungles of mathematics (or entrails).

A subgroup of the Believers which I shall call the “Suppresists”, appear to be firmly convinced that there is a conspiracy by commercial interests and or the government to prevent any device that upsets the energy economy status quo from being developed and made public. There is, of course, no objective, verifiable foundation to these claims but that doesn’t seem get in the way of the “Suppresists” … disagree with them and you must be either ignorant or in the pay of “The Man.”

The other sub-group I alluded to is the “It Has Already Been Solved” lobby. These people are convinced that company X or inventor Y has cracked the world energy problem and often argue vehemently that whatever Rossi is doing has already been done. They have sent me to Web sites where obscure companies show often fairly polished presentations of how their systems work and, in some cases, videos of supposedly working prototypes. Of course, there’s never anything you can buy or, for that matter, any third party scientifically valid test results but that doesn’t stop the “It Has Already Been Solved” lobby. They just believe.

From the way they argue I’d guess that many of the Believers probably also wear tin-foil hats. Some of the messages I’ve received from people who appear to be in this group are astounding not just for their lack of basic grammar but for their inability to express coherent thought.

So, before we look at the results of the E-Cat test on the 28th, what of Rossi and the E-Cat? Why has he been so cagey and secretive about the E-Cat and not permitted a reputable third party to conduct an objective performance test? Well, there appear to be two plausible explanations.

The first is that Rossi is honestly mistaken and he just believes the E-Cat works and produces excess energy when, in fact, it doesn’t. This is something that has happened before (Pons and Fleischmann appear to have been similarly mistaken) but it’s hard to believe as Rossi has been collaborating with a well-credentialed physicist and emeritus professor from Bologna University, Sergio Focardi. A failure of this kind would be a sad and unfortunate conclusion for all concerned as they would be discredited and reviled.

The other explanation is that the whole thing is a fraud and that the E-Cat doesn’t work at all. This too is hard to swallow because there would be no obvious upside. What benefit could either Rossi or Focardi hope to gain?

Sure, there may be some money involved but I doubt whether it would be a large enough amount to justify what would be an usually elaborate and public hoax and whoever the funds came from would, almost certainly, start legal proceedings (if not retain the services of a “mechanic”).

As with the case of the E-Cat being a mistake, the end result of it being a scam would also result in Rossi and Focardi being discredited and reviled. So unless Rossi has also discovered a way to vanish with the cash, the E-Cat being a fraud seems as unlikely as it being a mistake.

But here’s what I find so odd about Rossi and his project: If the E-Cat works and Rossi is just being cagey to maximize the financial benefits, he’s going about getting rich completely the wrong way. A working CF system (or, if you prefer, LENR system) would be one of most valuable, if not the most valuable, inventions in the history of mankind.

Quite inexplicably, Rossi has apparently choosen to go it alone and, it has been reported, has even sold his home to finance development of the E-Cat! This makes no sense. Rossi could have approached Bill Gates or Paul Allen or Warren Buffett or any of thousands of wealthy individuals and institutions and if the device could be proven to work, he would have been given a blank check! Should that not have been enough all he’d have to do is license the system at, say, $1 per year per kilowatt he’d become the richest person ever within a few years.

So, if Rossi isn’t in it for the money, then what else could he be in it for? If his goal was the betterment of mankind, he’s going about it in a very strange way. If it’s for fame and glory, his current way of promoting the E-Cat makes no sense.

Whatever rationale Rossi has for the way he’s developed, promoted, and presented the E-Cat is a complete mystery so we’ll just have to wait to see how the whole drama plays out.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

“Allow me to digress for a moment . . . If an experiment that demonstrates cold fusion has really been replicated in the real world by real scientists then why would the scientific community ignore something so profound? Everyone agrees that cold fusion would be a game changer and in itself would be a hugely important scientific discovery so why would anyone in the scientific community ignore an important, successful, and replicable experiment?”

Allow me to quote the Scientific American, January 1906, saying almost the same thing in close to the same words, regarding airplane flights in 1904 and 1905 by the Wright brothers, which had been observed by hundreds of people in Dayton, Ohio:

“If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which everyone feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face — even when he has to scale a fifteen‑story skyscraper to do so — would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?”

The Scientific American and most other mainstream media at the time did not believe the Wright brothers had flown. They never bothered to fact-check, or ask any of many distinguished citizens of Dayton who had signed affidavits declaring they had watched flights.

If Gibbs would do some fact checking, he will learn that cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in over 200 major laboratories. That according to published by Storms and the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102). Roughly 800 papers have been published describing these replications in major peer-reviewed journals. Before Gibbs comments on cold fusion, or asserts it has not been replicated, I think he should go to a university library and review the scientific literature.

1) Within 2 years after that SciAm faux pas, all the skepticism of the Wrights was vanquished by a definitive demonstration in 1908 in France. (And it could have come sooner, but the Wrights did not fly in the interim.) After that no scientist or scientific journal doubted them. It has been 22 years of claims of cold fusion, from hundreds of LENR advocates, and still mainstream science does not believe it. And if the claims were true, a definitive demonstration would be every bit as easy. So that story, in which vindication came quickly, rather supports the authors point, rather than refutes it.

2) SciAm was not skeptical of the concept of heavier-than-air flight, but of the Wrights’ claims. The Wrights were secretive, limiting access, and especially photography, until an offer was on the table. That may also be true of Rossi, but certainly not of most of the LENR community. The concept of heavier-than-air flight had been treated seriously by the major journals, including SciAm, Science, and Nature, from before 1900. Cold fusion has never been treated similarly by any of the relevant nuclear physics journals, or any APS journals, or SciAm, or Science, or Nature.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos, China Lake, Mitsubishi and other laboratories where cold fusion has been replicated are part of mainstream science. The journals that published replications are definitely part of mainstream science and they are relevant.

It is true that other mainstream scientists dispute the findings, although they have not published any peer-reviewed papers pointing out errors in the experiments, as far as I know. In 1989 several groups published papers saying they did the experiment but they did not observe the effect. That does not prove the reaction does not exist. The reasons they were unable to replicate are clear in retrospect, now that we know more about the reaction.

In the past there have often been scientific disputes, sometimes lasting for years or decades. In some cases the majority of journal editors and scientists have been proved right. In other cases they were wrong. So the fact that many scientists do not believe in cold fusion proves nothing one way or the other. Science is not a popularity contest.

I think that scientific disputes should be settled strictly by the weight of replicated, high-signal-to-noise, peer-reviewed data. By that standard cold fusion is real. In the history of experimental science, there are no examples of an effect that was replicated thousands of times in hundreds of professional scientists, yet which turned out to be mistakes or artifacts. Things like polywater were only reported by one or two labs, although many others attempted to replicate.

I do not think it is possible for researchers in hundreds of laboratories over 20 years to make thousands of major errors. If that could happen, experimental science itself would not work, and we humans would still be living in caves.

Other researchers in ’89 replicated the Pons and Fleichman results but the vast majority did not as they did not follow the procedures correctly nor wait long enough. One of the problems was it took time and the phenomena could not be easily reproduced. Those “scientists” who failed were very vexed at having their time wasted and closed the door very firmly on the event and called it pathological science i.e. sick science. Who but the bravest, true scientists (not priests) would be willing to be ostracized by their community and actually search for and find evidence of such a thing?

Nearly all cold fusion papers are in minor journals, and notably *not* in the journals most relevant to the phenomenon: nuclear physics journals. The most mainstream journal that published on the subject frequently (J. Electroanal. Chem.), stopped publishing CF around 2000. The main point is that if true, the claims would be monumental, and if accepted by the mainstream, could not be kept out of Science, Nature, and PRL. And isn’t the common complaint from cold fusion advocates that mainstream science ignores the field? So which is it? Is it part of the mainstream, or is it ignored by the mainstream?

Mainstream science has long given up finding errors in every new flaky cold fusion claim that is just the same as the last flaky one. They are waiting for some progress in the field, before they pay attention to it again. It is not the responsibility of skeptics to prove the claims are wrong. It is the responsibility of the advocates to prove they are right. And they have been given plenty of chances, including 2 special DOE panels (the latest in 2004) that were enlisted to examine the best evidence, and to interview the best proponents. They found no conclusive evidence for a nuclear effect.

Obviously science is not a popularity contest, and sometimes fringe groups turn out to be right. But it’s the exception. And usually when a consensus turns out to be wrong, it is after the revealing of some new experimental data, or a new theory. The most revolutionary of these (relativity and quantum mechanics) were accepted almost immediately. So, unless the fringe group is in possession of evidence not available to the mainstream, the consensus of experts is the most likely approximation to the truth. Or there would be no meaning the concept of experts. And the point that gave rise to this discussion is whether or not the evidence has so far convinced the mainstream. It hasn’t. And if the claims were valid, it would.

Scientific disputes *are* judged by the evidence, but no, by that standard, cold fusion is not judged to be real by most scientists, including scientists enlisted to examine the evidence in detail. All the cold fusion experiments give flaky, marginal, and controversial results. What cold fusion people call replication is not what is regarded as replication in most of science. It normally means getting the same quantitative result under the same conditions, but CF people are happy if they get the same *sign*. As McKubre says, no one has achieved quantitative reproducibility. Replication also normally means that people skilled in the art can reproduce someone else’s experiment, but according to McKubre’s experience, no interlab reproducibility has been demonstrated without the exchange of personnel. The most important point is that if the claims were real, and especially if it were as reproducible as you say, a single definitive demonstration should be easy as pie. It’s just heat they’re claiming, from a small-scale, bench top experiment, at easily accessible temperatures and pressures. And they’re claiming billions of joules per gram energy density. And yet they can’t demonstrate a completely isolated device that stays palpably warmer than its surroundings long enough to exceed its weight in chemical fuel. That’s the problem.

Rothwell: “In the history of experimental science, there are no examples of an effect that was replicated thousands of times in hundreds of professional scientists, yet which turned out to be mistakes or artifacts. ”

I’d be interested in an example of a phenomenon from a bench top experiment, in which the experimenter controls the parameters, rejected for decades by mainstream journals and scientists as artifacts and pseudoscience, that turned out to be right.

Cold fusion is a theory to explain erratic calorimetry results. There are many example of theories used to explain results that turned out to be wrong. The ether is one example. But of course I shouldn’t need to tell CF advocates that scientific ideas held by many scientists can be wrong. That’s the bread and butter of their defense of the field.

But in fact, there are many examples of phenomena widely claimed to have been replicated, for much longer than CF, which are nevertheless rejected by mainstream science. Things like perpetual motion, UFO sightings, any of a wide range of paranormal phenomena, many alternative medical treatments, and so on. Most of these will probably never be proven wrong to the satisfaction of their adherents, but that doesn’t make them right.

Some arguments for homeopathy, sound eerily similar to CF arguments. Check out this one from the guardian.co.uk (July 2010)

“ By the end of 2009, 142 randomised control trials (the gold standard in medical research) comparing homeopathy with placebo or conventional treatment had been published in peer-reviewed journals – 74 were able to draw firm conclusions: 63 were positive for homeopathy and 11 were negative. Five major systematic reviews have also been carried out to analyse the balance of evidence from RCTs of homeopathy – four were positive (Kleijnen et al; Linde et al; Linde et al; Cucherat et al) and one was negative (Shang et al).”

This is for medicine diluted so that on average less than one molecule of the starting material is present per dose.

Rothwell: “Things like polywater were only reported by one or two labs, although many others attempted to replicate.”

There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater. All those professional authors turned out to be wrong. There were 200 on N-rays; also all wrong. Cold fusion has more, but polywater had more than N-rays, and if you can get 450 papers on a bogus phenomenon, twice as many is not a big stretch, especially for a phenomenon with so much greater implication, and if an unequivocal debunking doesn’t come along.

Rothwell: “I do not think it is possible for researchers in hundreds of laboratories over 20 years to make thousands of major errors. If that could happen, experimental science itself would not work, and we humans would still be living in caves.”

Now wait a minute. First, we are not supposed to appeal to authority, but only to the evidence. Now, you’re appealing to authority. Except that you’re appealing to the minority. Scientists can be wrong. And pathological science is not a random process. The people attracted to it are those who are persuaded by it, so this kind of herd mentality is not surprising. It doesn’t matter if there are hundreds of scientists who are convinced by flaky data. The evidence does not convince me, and it didn’t convince the DOE panels, and it doesn’t convince the scientific mainstream.

“There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater. All those professional authors turned out to be wrong.”

That is incorrect. All of the peer-reviewed publications were correct, except the original one. None of them reported a replication. They reported failed attempts at replication. Please see F. Franks, “Polywater” (MIT Press, 1981).

There are no examples in the history of experimental science in which hundreds or even dozens of papers were published which were all subsequently shown to be wrong. If this could happen, the scientific method would not work.

First, parapsychology experiments is probably one of the most fruitful areas to study to illustrate the effects of poor but often subtle experimental design problems and the effect of experimenter bias in the outcome of experimental results. Homeopathy studies are another. The vaccine-autism studies by Andrew Wakefield are a third. All are cautionary tails.

Second, probability and statistics are the base language of experimental sciences. As such, the results are all affected by likelihoods of false positives and false negatives. Replications of experimental results are required to determine if results are not only caused by poor experimental design or experimenter bias, but by random errors.

As an example, if one runs one hundred trials of some experiment, one should expect five of those trials would show positive results when the truth is actually there is nothing there (false positive). Likewise, if, in truth, there is a relationship, one could expect say five trials of the experiment to show no effect (false negative).

Those conspiracy minded folks fail on a number of levels, but the key always seems to be the highlighting of some contrary result to established scientifically accepted principals as evidence of nefarious motives, rather than the randomness of nature and events even under controlled conditions.

Readers should please read original source, peer-reviewed literature on cold fusion. They should compare the facts reported in this literature to Cude’s statements. They will see that these statements are not in evidence.

For example, while it is true that some cold fusion calorimetric results are marginal, others have a large signal to noise ratio. For example, using instruments that can measure 0.01 W with confidence, researchers have measured 5 to 20 W, with no input power. In some cases the heat continued at these high power levels for days. The reaction is “neither small nor fleeting” (McKubre). To take another example, tritium was measured at BARC at millions of times background, which is a very high signal to noise ratio. Tritium was confirmed at over a hundred other laboratories.

The instruments used in these studies are conventional and well-understood. Some have been widely used since the mid-19th century. The researchers reporting these results are distinguished experts in calorimetry, electrochemistry, tritium and helium detection at places like Los Alamos, the PPPL and BARC. There is no chance all of these people measured tritium incorrectly.

As I noted, the Franks book shows that Cude’s assertions about polywater are incorrect.

All of Cude’s assertions about cold fusion are mistaken, as you can see in the relevant professional literature. There is no point to responding to each individual statement here. Scientific questions should be settled by a careful reading of properly sourced, peer-reviewed papers in relevant journals, not by unsourced assertions made on the Internet by someone who has not published papers in any relevant discipline.